0

One of the earmarks of empirical/materialistic research and documentation is its insistence on rejecting and dismissing any subject matter that it deems irrelevant. This has always appeared to me just as a convenient device for avoiding any serious consideration to any subject matter which doesn't suit one's 'fancy', and blithely moving on. The classic example is dismissing all of traditional metaphysics as 'dogma'. This was a feature with Hume, Kant and the likes of Wittgenstein and Russel. It has always seemed evident that these authors, whose work has become mainly ignored or overlooked, simply did not possess the capacity to grasp the highly challenging tenets of metaphysics.

Now, it is the realm of physics which supposedly holds all of the answers to what constitutes reality. Yet none of the major theories in physics, from quantum, string, uncertainty, relativity or even astrophysical depictions of the limits of the universe are observable, measurable or anything other than mathematical models which cannot be demonstrated 'physically'. So, What documented justification is there for using physics to describe the nature of reality?

1
  • Oh, IDK, wasn't it something that people could take pitchblende's radioactive qualities (accidentally discerned), pair this with ideas about stellar gravity, and voila, come up with a model for a kind of weapon that can kill everyone on Earth? Or invent computers? Or time crystals? Oct 26, 2020 at 19:04

1 Answer 1

1

"Now, it is the realm of physics which supposedly holds all of the answers to what constitutes reality."

This is wrong. Physics furnishes mathematically accurate approximations to allow the behavior of certain parts of the world to be predicted. Those approximations furnish a satisfactory accounting of why the world behaves as it does. There are lots of things that physics today cannot account for including the early thermodynamic history of the universe.

"Yet none of the major theories in physics, from quantum, string, uncertainty, relativity or even astrophysical depictions of the limits of the universe are observable, measurable or anything other than mathematical models which cannot be demonstrated 'physically'."

This is so wrong I do not know where to start, but I will furnish just one example of why. Starting from first principles, the mathematical model called renormalization was developed to account correctly for the quantum mechanical behavior of physical systems, so as to make the predictions of quantum mechanical calculations agree with experiment. The result agrees so precisely with experiment it is as if the renormalized model allows the distance from Los Angeles to New York to be predicted to an accuracy that agrees with actual measurement to within the thickness of a single sheet of paper.

"So, What documented justification is there for using physics to describe the nature of reality?"

In the most basic sense, the answer is its great success, which furnishes the basis for the technological side of human civilization. For more details I can recommend some books on the subject you could read, if interested.

3
  • nielson- Although I checked your answer you did not really answer the spirit of the question. The example you gave of a mathematical configuration which can allow for and essentially retriangulate data which do not conform to a desired outcome in an earthbound example like your measurement illustration has no bearing on the nature of reality, a purely metaphysical concept. Regards,
    – user37981
    Oct 26, 2020 at 18:41
  • You are dead wrong. Read up on the history of renormalization first. Oct 26, 2020 at 19:58
  • I'll just accept that as your response, thanks for your time.
    – user37981
    Oct 27, 2020 at 3:36

You must log in to answer this question.